Global Warming Deniers: Wanna Bet?
To the documented reality of a warming globe, there are those who remained unconvinced. Among this group, one of the few arrows left in the rhetorical quiver is a type offered Friday by John Hinderaker at Powerline
I don't think things are quite so bad this year, but if something doesn't change pretty soon 2009 may go down in history, in some parts of the U.S. at least, as another year with barely any summer. Here in Minnesota and across the Midwest, temperatures are abnormally cold. I don't know whether the phenomenon is world-wide--data that will answer this question have probably not been assembled, and may not be honestly reported--but the current low level of solar activity suggests that the cooling trend could indeed be universal.
In other words: "See, this cold snap is prima facie evidence that Al Gore is a dirty, rotten liar." Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight has taken up the challenge. His response: wanna bet on it?
Therefore, because I'd like to see more accountability on all sides of this debate and because I'm tired of people who don't understand statistics and because I'd like to make some money, I issue the following challenge....
For each day that the high temperature in your hometown is at least 1 degree Fahrenheit above average, as listed by Weather Underground, you owe me $25. For each day that it is at least 1 degree Fahrenheit below average, I owe you $25.
The elegance of the challenge is immediately obvious. While the global warming-deniers are quick to offer smoke and mirrors as evidence, would they be willing to put money on it?. If global warming isn't happening, or more preposterously, if global cooling is underway, then this is an easy bet to take. Yet shockingly, no one has yet taken Nate up on the bet.
I did a bit of checking at the National Weather Service and looked back at Portland weather in 2009. It was marked by one of the colder winters and springs we've had in recent years, and indeed, through the first quarter of the year, 47 days were colder than average, and only 35 were warmer (the balance were average). Ah-ha!--proof, along with Hinderaker's Minnesota observation that global warming is a myth! Or maybe not. Turns out the late spring and early summer have been warmer than average. Through Saturday there have been ten more days above average than below. Anyone taking Nate's bet would be in the hole $250 right now.
Oh, and when he looked at Minnesota's temperatures this summer versus historical averages, he found both to be exactly 82.4 degrees.
|
July 20, 2009 |
Jeff Alworth | Comments (106 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: anon | Jul 20, 2009 9:50:04 AM
I accept. Let's do paypall or something. I am so down to rape some ecotard for his life savings.
Posted by: anon | Jul 20, 2009 11:02:45 AM
Global warming is a religion. Global warming denial is also a religion. Debating religion is a no win proposition.
Posted by: Observer | Jul 20, 2009 11:06:40 AM
This is clever, but still not really a great approach. One reason is that even if global warming is occurring (and I feel confident that it is and that anthropogenic emissions are the primary culprit) some regions of the globe will warm while some will cool. If populated areas tend to be tilted in places that are expected to cool (Say all of the British Isles once the oceanic conveyor belt shuts down) Then you're statistics won't be representative.
Another problem is that we're all convinced that global "warming" is the problem when the larger underlying problem is actually more generically "climate change." When you force the climate system the way we're doing with atmospheric CO2 increases, you force a very dynamic change and in some regards an unpredictable change. We may actually end up warming the globe for a while which then results in the shutting down of the ocean conveyor belt (global oceanic currents that establish climate circulation patterns- too many melting glaciers will reduce the salinity of surface water in the North Atlantic and prevent the sinking of that water which drives circulation globally) which may actually trigger substantial cooling either regionally or perhaps even globally...
Either way, warming, cooling, we're changing the climate substantially, throwing things off equilibrium. That's going to results in regional changes that will affect crops, resource distribution, disease, and any of number of other things that could create social, environmental, and financial problems.
So... Even if a large number of people take Nate up on his offer, and even if more of them report a cooling trend, it does not necessarily mean that the globe is cooling or that their isn't still a major problem.
The way this has all been set up is that if we're not warming rapidly, every day, every year, then the skeptics have something to sink their teeth into. Because the narrative is shortsighted. Then again, if you're message isn't simple it's not going to be heard, which is perhaps why we stick with "warming." Not sure how much money is being invested in the marketing of the confidence of climate change science these days, but probably not enough.
Posted by: mp97303 | Jul 20, 2009 11:08:43 AM
Jeff--Didn't you get the memo? It's not GLOBAL WARMING anymore. It's GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE. (That is unless I didn't get the memo and they call it something else now)
Posted by: Observer | Jul 20, 2009 11:17:26 AM
Anon- behind the religion, there's real scientists grinding it out, creating the guts of the science without the spotlight on them, without any glory, without any politics. Their politics is coming up with the best science possible and competing day in and day out to have the better science, not to see who can come up with scenarios that predict more or less warming.
There are scientists working to determine how absorptive certain types of aerosols are, and plugging new parameterizations into the climate models. In some cases, that may lead to warmer scenarios and others cooler scenarios. But those scientists working to characeterize aerosols don't so much care, they work with each other to determine - within the little niche - who's doing a better job of characterizing aerosols. Add the work being done in the niche fields up, and you have a good part of the science that has become the basis for the science of climate change and the predictions that we are causing change.
It's impossible for me to believe that these scientists (I used to be one) are driven by political motives. In science, those sorts of scientists don't make the cut. They don't get to stick around and influence how the science unfolds. (Unless they're funded by Exxon Mobil of course, which - according to their own documents - spent tens of millions literally on creating confusion on this issue to avoid consensus and avoid the setting of policy that would more rapidly shift us away from oil and more quickly towards other forms of renewable energy.)
Posted by: Joe White | Jul 20, 2009 11:29:43 AM
If we don't understand that the weather ALWAYS changes and that there are heating and cooling cycles, wet and dry cycles in areas small and large, then we are doomed to be manipulated by those who want to use normal climate change (yes it is normal) to seize control of the economy and impose socialism on the USA.
It has only been in the past few decades that anyone has been able to amass weather data from around the globe.
So to look at a few decades of data and declare 'This isn't normal. We are in a crisis. The global climate is being altered by Man.' is simply an exercise in deception.
Gather at least a thousand years of hard data from all around the globe. Then we'll talk.
When the Norsemen landed in Greenland in 1000, it was warm enough to grow crops in a significant part of that land.
Then came the 'Little Ice Age' a few hundred years later, which we are probably still recovering from.
Don't show me a couple of decades of weather data, (largely from one hemisphere), and declare you've detected a 'crisis'.
Does anyone seriously want to make the case that temperature data from 1900, taken with glass thermometers, is as accurate as data gathered now with advanced digital equipment?
Since the whole debate turns on the swing of a degree or two over the next hundred years, make the case that your early 1900s data is worth looking at first.
Posted by: Observer | Jul 20, 2009 11:35:00 AM
Joe White - Ever hear of ice cores? You're the one not looking back far enough, not the scientists.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jul 20, 2009 11:58:44 AM
Actually, the science of global warming is ... science. The data speak volumes to those who wish to listen. Funny, despite the bluster (I love that deniers never have the courage to print their actual name), still no takers. Those who wish to take Nate up on the deal, you still can.
Posted by: KenRay | Jul 20, 2009 12:03:54 PM
I understand that this is an opinion board and the title is meant to be polemic, but even the way this thread is worded is loaded language. You can believe in global warming and still not believe it is anthropogenic. I have not been convinced. Many of you will stop reading at this point and label me a "denier" or as I see it, you will consider me an apostate.
It has been pointed out that this subject does manifest in a religion to some. How else can you explain the vehement personal attacks by some if you do not go along with this belief? Paul Krugman calls those who disagree with him traitors to the planet. Robert Kennedy Jr said the same thing and President Obama's science advisor John Holdren has proposed forced abortions and a global SWAT team to enforce environmental regulations. That fanaticism is equal in intent, if not implementation, to anything Hitler, Torqemada or Abu Nidal said.
Don't tell me about consensus among scientists about anthropogenic climate change. Consensus is not the same as established fact. Hundreds of years ago consensus was that bleeding a person cured illness. 120 years ago, scientific consensus opined that white people were genetically superior. It is likely that 50 years from now the natural cycles of earth's temperature will be shown to have misled a lot of otherwise educated people on this topic. In addition, they will marvel at the hubris of people convincing themselves that they themselves were so important that they could change the earth's temperature.
By the way, don’t bother attacking me on intelligence. I will be happy to compare IQ’s with anyone on this board.
Posted by: Nate Currie | Jul 20, 2009 12:20:21 PM
Well, I'm sure as hell not a global warming denier, but there's a reason experts, particularly in the scientific community, now refer to it as global climate change. Observer, has summed these arguments fairly well, so I will simply refer you to his/her observations above.
Even if the the average global temperature is rising year over year (and since there can be great fluctuation from one year to the next, this is by no means guaranteed, even if the overall trend is undeniably upward), all the scientific evidence points to changing weather patterns cooling in some areas, even as this is offset by greater rises in other locations. Frankly, much as I admire Nate and agree with his cause, I'm tempted to look up some of these, declare one as my "hometown" and make the bet. I could use the cash...
Posted by: Observer | Jul 20, 2009 12:25:17 PM
KenRay, I usually don't bother debating people who boast about their IQ's so I'll keep this short: Today's climate models do a great job of mimicking climate both before we began to alter it with CO2 emissions and other factors and after it. Yeah, climate does vary naturally, and does so dramatically over time. Models capture that. But the cause and effect relationship of our actions is also well understood and we're altering climate in a way (and at a pace) that really hasn't been seen before.
It's staggering that we're not taking this more seriously, given the implications, even if just financial, of what we're doing to our planet and how its going to impact our lives.
If we're going to wait for established fact before doing something, it will be too late. Imagine you're in a dark alley, and some shady looking dude says, I'm 99% sure I'm going to kick your ass and take all your money. Are you going to tell him to "prove it" and wait for the pain, are you going to bank on the 1% option, or do something to fight back?
Posted by: ScottJ | Jul 20, 2009 12:51:54 PM
Jeff,
why use a loaded word such as "denier"?
Is everyone who disagrees with you tied to the Nazi movement?
Is that how liberals aim to extinguish debate?
Is labeling your opponent an un-earned term the only way you can win an arguement?
A better term is the "warming naturalist". This is a term that refers to those that think warming is happening as part of a natural cycle (not man induced) that has been in place over all of history as evidenced by the many past cycles of warming and cooling.
Please be an adult and ease up on the name calling. It make you look juvenile. Sorry for the typos.
Posted by: KenRay | Jul 20, 2009 1:00:23 PM
I'll answer the analogy with another. If my response to that 99% chance of getting my butt kicked is to pull out a gun and shoot the alleged aggressor, then yes, you wait for him to 'prove it'.
The 'tax and trade' measure pushed by the current administration would be so draconian and hurt working families so much with the giant increases in energy costs, 99% certainty isn't good enough.
On another note, anyone who says they want to eliminate fossil fuel electricity generation but won't consider nuclear generation is not serious about the subject or hasn't studied the law of conservation of matter and energy.
BTW, I didn't brag on IQ. I just said don't attack me on intelligence. I have noticed the usual response on this board to anything challenging liberal orthodoxy is to attack the writer's intelligence. I just served notice that won't work with me. I just ignore those types.
Posted by: Observer | Jul 20, 2009 1:29:04 PM
KenRay - you're missing my point. If your ass is already kicked, there's no point having a gun. The "gun" to be metaphorically correct is your ability to win the argument before your ass is kicked. That means you have to engage with some persuasion of your own rather than simply opposing what others say. Yeah, you don't like the advocates of doing something about climate change, and you think adaptation will be too expensive (different debate) but what do you have to say about the scientific basis for climate change? Nothing yet...
So here's my question to you: If climate models are good at predicting natural and historic variations in climate (which they are, based on ice cores and other historic records) and good at modeling the impacts of humans (which they are) and it takes the inclusion of human activity to model that past 100 years accurately (which it does), then why should we argue that in the future, these models, which predict a range of significant temperature increases, should not be taken seriously?
Because you're so intelligent, KenRay, you'll no doubt be able to tell me - with some scientific specificity - either why my assertions about modeling accuracy are not true, or why despite the accuracy of these models, we should not believe what they have to say about the future. If you want to persuade me of anything, you'll have to do it on one of those two points.
So far you don't seem very impressionable, so I'm not gonna try to persuade you. But I am impressionable, so why don't you take a shot...
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jul 20, 2009 2:33:21 PM
why use a loaded word such as "denier"?
For ScottJ and others, read the post again. It's Hinderaker who thinks global warming isn't happening. If you don't like the word "denier," I don't blame you: coming to terms with the science has been slow work for many on the right. I might wince, too, to think that just five years ago the entire Republican leadership was lockstep in denying that the phenomenon existed at all.
It's true that some now admit that while it's happening, it's not "anthropogenic." I guess this is progress, but it's still not science. Despite what some folks on the right still maintain, the scientific consensus among climate scientists is clear. The "skeptics" are bogus.
Posted by: mp97303 | Jul 20, 2009 2:47:21 PM
From Matt Taibbi's piece in Rolling Stone...
Gone are Hank Paulson and Neel Kashkari; in their place are Treasury chief of staff Mark Patterson and CFTC chief Gary Gensler, both former Goldmanites. (Gensler was the firm's co-head of finance.) And instead of credit derivatives or oil futures or mortgage-backed CDOs, the new game in town, the next bubble, is in carbon credits — a booming trillion- dollar market that barely even exists yet, but will if the Democratic Party that it gave $4,452,585 to in the last election manages to push into existence a groundbreaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an "environmental plan," called cap-and-trade. The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that's been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated.(emphasis mine) Goldman won't even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.
Posted by: Private | Jul 20, 2009 2:55:05 PM
the earth has been cooling since 2001. Government may be able to manipulate ground temperature readings, but not satellite readings. 11% of temperature measurement stations meet government specifications. most, are on top of asphalt. As for the rising sea levels. This is a myth!!. Also don't worry about the polar bears, because glaciers have grown at the fastest pace of record to Pre-global warming levels. It is a scientific FACT that temperature fluctuations is the cause of CO2 fluctuations. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Thats why Al Gore never combined the 2 graphs in his movie. IPCC is a government sponsored organization. They put fear into people to pass legislation that will supposedly protect the environment. What they are really doing is bring us back to the dark ages. And all the bills and legislation is just another tax increase on the consumer, while Al Gore and GE get all the money from the "green projects".
Posted by: Observer | Jul 20, 2009 3:10:19 PM
Private - way to elevate the dialog! Got any links for us to back up those assertions?
Posted by: Roy McAvoy | Jul 20, 2009 3:51:52 PM
Funny how both sides of this issue claim to have all the science in their favor. I've read much of what has been printed by many many sources, and have never found anything conclusive to convince me either way. I guess this makes y'all much smarter than me because you were able to come to a definite conclusion from your in depth research, and I was not. In fact, it probably makes me worse than a "denier" or a progressive "eco-nut" because my viewpoint puts me in the middle. Therefore, I am in disagreement with most of the rest of the population.
Oh well, I'll keep on recycling, driving my gas efficient car, and helping the planet whenever I can. But I will also feverishly fight against the spending of untold billions on ridiculous speculative fixes for global warming or climate change. The argument over this issue does seem as endless as the argument over religion, only a bit more frustrating becuase it is so much more expensive.
Posted by: Observer | Jul 20, 2009 4:09:58 PM
Roy - not a bad perspective at all. You're doing the right things and skeptical of experts. I'm confident in the science because I used to be a climate scientist. I know that the science isn't perfect and there are disagreements within the field, but overall there is consensus on a range of likely future scenarios, even the most conservative of which present problems for humanity.
On the cost of a fix vs. the cost of climate change, I know far less. I generally believe that if we're creative and adaptive we can find ways of reducing our impact on the climate and prevent the impacts from being too strong, but perhaps that's personal faith or optimism more than anything. (I've seen some dire scenarios on how much doing nothing will cost, say, relating to coastal infrastructure as a result of sea-level rise that have made my jaw drop.) If we're worried purely about the cost of climate change, this is the more important question: how much it costs to avoid it vs. deal with it. Of course, you have to admit that climate change - man made or not - is happening first before you can have that conversation.
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Jul 20, 2009 4:19:29 PM
I think "deniers" is actually a pretty good term given the emotional, fact-free debate above. I studied climate change in graduate school for quite a number of years, but see no point to spend time outlining facts in a debate where no one is apparently reading past the headline anyway. Suffice to say, it's beyond me how anyone could think you could have ever increasing levels of CO2, methane and other gases pumped into the atmosphere for 250 years and NOT have it change the chemistry of the earth, water and air. Maybe you all shouldn't eat so many fish out of the Willamette, huh? Or is the bit about mercury made up to?
Posted by: Private | Jul 20, 2009 4:25:04 PM
Observer- Global Warming is not real. There is Not a scientific consensus on it. I is used as a weapon by politicians to raise taxes. We are about to pass the bill that would be the largest tax increase in history. Obama even said your energy bills would "skyrocket". By the way cap and trade has FAILED in Europe.
http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Climate_Change_Science.html
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Jul 20, 2009 4:32:54 PM
Private,
You can set up a "private" group website and call it whatever you want to, e.g. "I_am_a_real_scientist.com". But it doesn't make it so.
Check out what REAL scientists think at the National Science Foundation and get back to us. Oh yeah, that's right--you think the NSF is a plot to raise your taxes. I guess you can keep repeating "I'm not a crazy, paranoid loon" all day too, also doesn't make it so.
Posted by: Private | Jul 20, 2009 4:40:19 PM
Well Willie Soon, Phd, Chief Science Advisor at Science and Public Policy Institute thinks the global warming theory is false. Watch this video before you make another comment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rEXe4y1d8Q
Posted by: Observer | Jul 20, 2009 4:54:33 PM
Ok. Like most comment threads about climate change, this one is starting to come unglued. Score another one for Exxon Mobil, I guess. Money well spent.
https://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2006/10/senators-tell-exxonmobil-stop-funding-climate-change-deniers-story-mother-jones-broke
Posted by: Private | Jul 20, 2009 5:23:38 PM
Wow, it amazes me that you came up with an article that was published in 2006. Who are you too say what Exxon Mobil can spend their money on? It was none of the senators business to prohibit the company form endorsing Climate Change Deniers.
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Jul 20, 2009 5:42:28 PM
"Science and Public Policy Institute" Nice.
Think tank vs. Peer review. (More like hype vs. data.)
Not really the same standard there, Private.
But of course academic peer review is also a government plot to raise your taxes, teach evolution to school children, and undermine the nuclear family by forcing people to have no more dependents than can fit comfortably in a Prius, right?
Posted by: kenray | Jul 20, 2009 5:54:37 PM
Observer, I think that I made my point. Global/climate/warming/change is a religion and my point is I am agnostic in this area. I am not a 'denier', but I am not sold on it either.
The fanatics consider agnosticism and atheism to be the same deviancy; so it is with climate change believers.
I don’t expect to change your mind. Once you accept something on faith, proof is no longer needed and people don’t usually go back and re-examine the most current evidence once they believe something on faith.
You’re the believer; I’m the agnostic. You’re the one who needs to proselytize, not me. I accept that you believe in modeling and I don’t see that it is 100% proof. The models get more and more inaccurate the farther out you go. Then, to predict what will happen, they are extrapolated out into the future. The problem with extrapolation is that variables come into play. Robert A. Heinlein in an article in 1970 used the average speed of travel from ancient times and made a curve incorporating the moon landing. The curve extrapolated out showed that transportation would be averaging faster than light by the year 2000.
Posted by: Private | Jul 20, 2009 6:01:37 PM
If anyone who is reading this and believes in Global Warming. I urge you to look at this article that debunks Global Warming.
http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Climate_Change_Science.html
If you find any part of this study to be false. please post a comment, with a counterexample & link too it. It must not be from the IPCC or Government sponsored organization.
Posted by: Observer | Jul 20, 2009 7:11:05 PM
KenRay - you don't seem to understand models very well. And your 100% standard is a pretty tough one. I doubt it's a standard that you demand for everything in your life, but if you do, you're likely to be one very disappointed human being.
Good luck working that out.
I'm a believer in science, not in global warming. Science.
Posted by: DJ | Jul 20, 2009 7:39:38 PM
For Observer...
excerpt from USA Today's 7/14/09 Science Fair:
Could the best climate models -- the ones used to predict global warming -- all be wrong?
Maybe so, says a new study published online today in the journal Nature Geoscience. The report found that only about half of the warming that occurred during a natural climate change 55 million years ago can be explained by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. What caused the remainder of the warming is a mystery.
The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of this ancient warming. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models -- the same ones used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for current best estimates of 21st century warming -- caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM."
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jul 20, 2009 8:07:11 PM
And critics wondered why I used the word "denier."
Posted by: Steve | Jul 20, 2009 8:36:10 PM
"Anyone taking Nate's bet"
Cump change! If we can turn this into a cap-n-trade we can spit out as many carbon emissions as before adn make more money for the govt.
Posted by: DJ | Jul 20, 2009 8:49:19 PM
Jeff, thanks for using the word "denier." Overuse of the word "denier" by the AGW industry has actually contributed to the skepticism the masses have for this "settled science." And the more the masses dig, the more reason they have to be skepticle. Only from a "denier" can they learn that none of the IPCC climate models predicted the current period of global cooling since 1998...and that the last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase.
‘If you’d asked any scientist or doctor 30 years ago where stomach ulcers come from, they would all have given the same answer: obviously it comes from the acid brought on by too much stress. All of them apart from two scientists who were pilloried for their crazy, whacko theory that it was caused by a bacteria. In 2005 they won the Nobel prize. The “consensus” was wrong.’
- Ian Plimer, author, Heaven And Earth: Global Warming — the Missing Science
Posted by: alcatross | Jul 20, 2009 10:00:15 PM
Sorry Jeff, but this one rates as one of the more stupid posts I've read here.
Only a true full-blown 'global warming' convert would 'sound-bite' a much longer blog posting and characterize it out-of-context as "See, this cold snap is prima facie evidence that Al Gore is a dirty, rotten liar."
I suspect the reason 'global warming deniers' have not picked up this meaningless nonsensical bet has more to do with people having better things to do with their time and money - and nothing to do with people quaking in their boots at the 'look at me' proclamations of the great and powerful Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.
Anyone trying to credibly claim 'global warming' is or isn't happening based on data for one year vs some average has no credibility.
Posted by: jimbo46 | Jul 20, 2009 10:59:29 PM
KenRay - So your doctor tells you your appendics is infected and unless you have it removed you're going to die. Now, you're a science agnostic (unless you limit your agnosticism to climate science) (and this doctor does stand to make a bit of money excising your your putrid organ), so you've already received 2 other diagnoses, and they concur. But here's the rub: none of these doc's have been able to declare, with 100% certainty, that you will die without the surgery. Unless you can tell me with a straight face that, without 100% certainty you're not getting cut, then I call BS on your claim to scientific "agnosticsm".
Posted by: rogerisright | Jul 21, 2009 12:15:27 AM
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Jul 21, 2009 1:16:21 AM
DJ:
Could the best climate models -- the ones used to predict global warming -- all be wrong?
Bob T:
Well, the models didn't predict melting ice caps (or at least at the South Pole). The models had rising temps over most of the planet creating more water evaporating which would make its way to the poles where it comes down as snow (becoming ice) despite any rise in temps there because the temps will still be well below freezing.
But that didn't happen. So we hear that the melting ice caps are a sign of global warming even though the models called for the opposite (so should we believe them?), rather than possibly being a regional condition with no relationship to what's happening elsewhere (i.e. could be melting even with general cooling going on).
This, by the way, was put forth by Richard Muller, a top scientist who happens to accept the view that the globe is warming and may go up another 10 F in a hundred years,
so I needed to point that out before someone smears him with the "denier" label.
Bob Tiernan
Portland
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Jul 21, 2009 1:21:57 AM
Scott J:
why use a loaded word such as "denier"?
Is everyone who disagrees with you tied to the Nazi movement?
Is that how liberals aim to extinguish debate?
Bob T:
Fortunately, in this country, that's all they do. In other places and times they (Lenin, Che, etc) would have people shot in the back of the neck or head for not going along with the full program. People who wear Che T-shirts know nothing about the real Che (firing squads, stupidity, cowardice etc), only that he looks "cool" in the beret and was supposedly a "champion of the downtrodden" or something.
Bob Tiernan
Portland
Posted by: jamie | Jul 21, 2009 3:25:34 AM
Jeff Alworth: Actually, the science of global warming is ... science. The data speak volumes to those who wish to listen.
J: Are you listening? Here are a few things to listen to:
1. The Antarctic ice cores show temperature rising first, then later, the CO2 rises. (23:49)
2. The monthly mean surface temperature peaked in 1998 at 0.45 deg C, followed by a big dip and rise to a several year flat (well below the peak) then a drop to about 0.1deg C, we are now about 0.25 deg C above the average since 1950 and dropping. The uptrend has been broken. (12:08)
3. The Antarctic ice cores show current temperature at least 4 deg. C BELOW the peak interglacial temperature of 320,000 years ago. (19:17)
My observation: this proves: a) Today’s temperature is not unusual, in fact far cooler than in the past. B) The temperature did not run away then, why would it now.
4. Deep ocean temperature is about 4 Deg C cooler than 30,000 years ago, 13-14 Deg C cooler than 50,000 years ago, and at least three degrees cooler than 5000 years ago. (30:50)
5. Past CO2 levels were about triple today’s level . (30:50)
All of the above facts are currently mainstream and were mentioned by Jim Hensen or clearly visible on the graphs he presented, so please don’t argue these facts. The numbers in () are the time into the presentation where these were presented.
He also had ONLY TWO arguments that CO2 causes warming: gases & orbital changes are sufficient to explain the past and the models only work when CO2 is added.
That is a logical fallacy: assuming that we know ALL POSSIBLE causes of warming. If there is just one factor we don’t know about, or more likely have the magnitude of its effect incorrect, the model will produce false predictions, while fitting the past. If you don’t understand this, you need to study basic logic and models.
Hansen is the best the true believing warmers have and even he could not even produce real evidence that CO2 causes warming.
Of course he didn’t mention the fact that solar cycles correlate better with earth temperature than CO2 levels.
Jeff Alworth: For ScottJ and others, read the post again. It's Hinderaker who thinks global warming isn't happening.
J: Considering that the satellite instruments show no warming and the ground stations are absolute crap for quality, why do you think we are warming? Just because that great scientists, Al says so?
Much more realism at SustainableOregon.com
Posted by: jamie | Jul 21, 2009 3:35:53 AM
Jeff Alworth: Despite what some folks on the right still maintain, the scientific consensus among climate scientists is clear.
J: What consensus? Show us the evidence that there is a consensus. (Please don’t try to pawn off Naomi’s non-peer reviewed opinion piece in Nature or Science - she couldn’t even get the search terms she used right in the article.)
Don’t forget to explain the several Nobel laureates and IPCC scientists that have recently become skeptics.
Jeff Alworth: The "skeptics" are bogus.
J: Why don’t you cite some of that science you keep mentioning? Start by citing some evidence that man is the cause of global warming. To do this you must prove each of the following. (If you cannot prove this you have no basis for your belief.):
* Prove that observed temperature increases are real.
* Prove that temperature increases are unusual in a historical context.
* Prove that CO2 actually can cause warming
* Prove the relationship between any given CO2 increase and temperature
* Prove what a dangerous amount of global warming actually is.
* Prove that man's CO2 is responsible for the observed increase in atmospheric CO2.
Before you rush off to prove these, you probably should know these facts:
1. CO2 only causes about 1/3 of the warming. The rest is caused by water.
2. Of the total CO2 emissions, man only contributes about 3%
3. CO2's effect is logarithmic and we are near the plateau.
All of the cute polar bears, melting glaciers and (non) rising seas DON’T MATTER if you cannot show that man is the cause.
BTW, how does someone ignorant of basic science become so convinced of something, based on science that he does not understand?
Much more realism at SustainableOregon.com
Posted by: jamie | Jul 21, 2009 4:56:13 AM
I just found this - they said it better than I did:
Here’s the line of reasoning Team-AGW used:
“The world has warmed since 1700 or 1800, and carbon dioxide levels have gone up. We’ve ruled out all the other factors, therefore all the extra warming is due to CO2.”
This is technically argument from ignorance—or in common terms: “It must be carbon because we can’t think of anything else.” It’s flawed reasoning from the start. Worse, Team-AGW want us to believe they can “rule out all the other forces”, and at the same time accept the idea that it’s OK that they got the last eight years wrong because of… er …”unexplained forces”.
They can’t have it both ways: either they can explain what drives the climate, and predict what happens next, or they can’t explain what drives the climate, and so they can’t calculate carbon dioxides effect.
Above is from:
joannenova.com.au/2009/07/19/the-unwarming-world/
while you are there be sure to download the skeptics handbook from the main page.
Posted by: Richard | Jul 21, 2009 7:38:43 AM
This is yet another example of the left's stunning naivity and lack of skeptisism.
Thye global warming movement is riddled with so many assinine claims and observations only true blue fools and a few other slackers would accept the science that supposes more than substantiates.
BlueOregon can't even grasp the fabrications here on their own blog where the nonexistent link between ocean dead zones and global warming was distributed to the duped.
Gee all it takes is for a liberal OSU professor to ponder and suppose a possible link and the Blues run with it.
Just like MANY other tall tales about global warming.
Such as that Professor, Jane Lubchenco, now head of NOAA, claiming climate models are robust enough to predict wind paterns 100 years from now. Again not a shed of science or truth behind that claim.
And when experts such as the polar bear expert is denied access to AGW conferences because he rejects that other tall tale about decliing polar bear populations from AGW Blues recognize no problem.
On and on and on.
Posted by: bradley peterson | Jul 21, 2009 10:19:43 AM
Seems to me that the sun's activity and magnetic field and cosmic rays are responsible for temperature changes on the earth and the light bulbs I use have no effect. The computer models however take my lightbulbs into consideration and not the sun, cosmic rays and cloud cover. Perhaps primitive man who thought the sun was important is closer to the truth than the politically programmed computers.
Posted by: Luke | Jul 21, 2009 1:59:32 PM
This somewhat speaks to Roy's comment. What saddens me about the global warming craze is that all this enviornmental energy could be put into something actually useful, like cleaning up Mercury deposits, lowering pollution, etc.
Instead, the big bad guy is the harmless little Co2 molecule, something I just can't bring myself to call a "pollutant" by any stretch of the imagination.
I support recycling. I refuse to drive an inefficient car. I take better care of the environment than nearly everybody I know. I also think global climate change, at least as it's being sold in the media, is bunk.
Posted by: Jake Leander | Jul 21, 2009 4:44:23 PM
Roy McAvoy wrote:
Funny how both sides of this issue claim to have all the science in their favor.
Ya, it's funny, Roy. That doesn't mean that both sides are wrong or that the truth lies half-way between. In this case there is a clear scientific consensus supporting human-caused climate change resulting from fossil fuel oxidation and some other facets of human economy. Yes, there are scientists who disagree with the consensus. Consensus does not suggest unanimity. The reason Krugman and others are so tough on those who refuse to accept the scientific consensus is the severity of the consequences of ignoring climate change. Economic losses could be many times the cost of taking reasonable action to deal with the problem. Then there are the risks beyond economic value, such as mass extinction of species and massive loss of human life.
It is quite difficult to make the case that increased atmospheric CO2 does not cause warming. This can be observed in simple closed systems, and the preponderance of climatic data suggests it works alike in earth's atmosphere.
And...even if present climate change were not human caused, that does not mean that humanity should not act to alter the trend. Humans do not create all the diseases we work so hard to prevent and cure. If a large asteroid is found to be on a collision course with earth, that would not be a human-caused problem. I would hope this would not stop us from trying to avert the collision.
Posted by: upstate | Jul 21, 2009 5:14:48 PM
Denier ?? People don't have to deny the earth is warming, because it isn't. It has been cooling for nearly a decade..
how many of those vaunted computer models predicted a cooling trend to begin this century????
I'm no scientist .. but i believe CO2 is about 600 ppm.
PPM = PARTS PER MILLION!!!!! And mans contribution is a fraction of that .. 5% or so i believe .. its difficult to imagine CO2 being a strong enough force to raise ocean temps or atmospheric temps .. the numbers don't make sense.
You can piss in the ocean and tell me the sea levels are going to rise .. but don't try to get into my wallet to build a wall to stop it.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Joe White | Jul 20, 2009 9:49:16 AM
Most of the planets in our solar system, and some of the moons, show evidence of 'warming'.
What did we do to cause that?